With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Shannon Cotton, Michael Murphy, and Jorge Gonzalez Villareal, joined a lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit was initially filed by Washington, DC-based construction company Baker DC, LLC seeking an injunction to halt implementation of the new rules.

Washington, DC (March 3, 2015) – Tomorrow morning, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman will testify before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions on the dangers of the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) recently-enacted regulations that will further give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded employees during unionization campaigns.

The Subcommittee, which is chaired by Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), will focus on a series of election rule changes designed to dramatically shorten the time individual workers have to share information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization. The regulations also require employers to hand over workers' private information to union organizers, including their phone numbers and email addresses.

Taubman, a veteran Foundation staff attorney, will contend that dramatically shortening the period before unionization elections will hurt workers' ability to cast an informed vote.

Washington, DC (February 12, 2015) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed briefs in two federal courts challenging the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) recently-enacted regulations that will further give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded employees during unionization campaigns.

The rules are designed to dramatically shorten the time individual workers have to share information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization. The regulations also require employers to hand over workers' private information to union organizers, including their phone numbers and email addresses.

The new rules are designed to dramatically shorten the time individual workers have to share information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization. The new regulations also require employers to hand over workers' private information to union organizers, including their phone numbers and email addresses.

This isn't the first time the NLRB rushed out the new rules in December before a Member's term expired, this time as former union lawyer Nancy Schiffer's term expires on Tuesday, December 16. The NLRB previously rushed the regulations out before former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lawyer and Obama NLRB recess appointee Craig Becker's term expired in December 2011. They were later invalidated by a federal district court in 2012 on procedural grounds.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation released the following statement in the wake of the NLRB's announcement:

"Christmas came early for Big Labor as the Obama Labor Board has once again given union bosses increased power to ambush workers into dues-paying union ranks."

Washington, DC (April 7, 2014) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed formal comments today with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing the Board's proposed guidelines, which will help give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded workers.

The NLRB again proposed these rules dictating how union organizing elections are conducted after a federal court struck them down in 2012. The court ruled that the Board did not have a quorum necessary to enact the new rules when it tried to do so.

Today, an article on RealClearMarketsraises more questions regarding the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) conduct in the United Autoworker (UAW) union boss push to gain monopoly power over Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee:

What is unusual about this election for United Auto Workers representation?...

The speedy election was coordinated with the National Labor Relations Board, which was unusually cooperative in approving the election petition. Although the election was only nine days away, the board immediately agreed to set up an election during a three-day period. The NLRB must organize and supervise the election, and count the ballots. How odd that on February 3 the Board had time available from February 12 to 14 to do this, a big favor for the United Auto Workers.

Former NLRB board member John N. Raudabaugh, now a law professor, told me, "I have never seen such a quick election."

As you may recall, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are assisting several workers who challenged the UAW's and VW's coercive unionization tactics at the Chattanooga VW facility. After a three month investigation, the NLRB's Division of Advice issued two memos instructing the NLRB Regional Director in Atlanta to dismiss the workers' charges.

Moreover, NLRB staff in Washington, DC, hurriedly released the Division's instructions to members of the press and did not release the memos to the workers' Foundation staff attorneys.

A leaked email shows that the Regional Director in Atlanta questioned the propriety of the memos' release to the media, contrary to longstanding NLRB practice.

Foundation attorneys are concerned that the NLRB's hurried public release of memos favorable to VW and the UAW right before a high-profile election, and its approval of a quick-snap election within hours of VW requesting one, calls into question the agency's impartiality in the workers' cases.

Foundation staff attorneys have requested an official inquiry into the NLRB's conduct in the case, and also filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the NLRB seeking full disclosure regarding the agency's handling of the case and its contacts with UAW agents.

The NLRB's actions in this case continue to raise questions about its impartiality going forward.

Foundation staff attorney, Ave Maria law professor, and former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member John Raudabaugh has published his latest installment to the Foundation's newest blog feature, "NLRB Watch."

In "NLRB Watch" #5, Raudabaugh explains how the NLRB's newest webpage boldly demonstrates its forced unionism bias and how it's just the tip of the iceberg:

Typical of the current NLRB, however, the [webpage] bold faces the statute’s Section 7 right “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” but does not bold the remainder of the statutory sentence: “and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities.”

Why after 77 years, is the NLRB highlighting “protected concerted activity”? Is it because the agency’s caseload has diminished over the years, and it is desperate to ramp up activity to justify its ever increasing federal budget?...

Or, is the current NLRB pushing internet outreach to help unions reverse their losses?

Click here to read the rest of this and other posts located at the "NLRB Watch" page. And be sure to follow the National Right to Work Foundation on Facebook and Twitter to get alerts on new "NLRB Watch" posts!

Washington, D.C. (May 14, 2012) – Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has struck down the National Labor Relations Board's new rules dictating how union organizing elections are conducted, ruling that the Board did not have a quorum necessary to enact the new rules.

The National Right to Work Foundation – the nation's premier advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – filed comments opposing the Board's proposed new guidelines which would help give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded employees.

The new rules dramatically shortened the time frame individual workers have to share truthful information with their coworkers about the adverse effects of unionization and to hear their employer's views on the subject. In other words, the new rules were one-sided.

Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, issued the following statement regarding the ruling:

"The Obama NLRB is determined to make union organizing campaigns as one-sided as possible and to stifle the rights of employees who may oppose bringing a union into their workplace. Today, the court's ruling demonstrates once again the biased way that the Obama Labor Board has operated – a two member majority ramming through the final pro-union boss rule change without even asking the one minority member to vote.